Quantcast
Navi Made in Colab with sony, MS still Using it?

Forums - General Discussion - Navi Made in Colab with sony, MS still Using it?

Pricing of Xbox VS PS%

Xbox +$150 > PS5 0 0.00%
 
Xbox +$100 > PS5 5 14.71%
 
Xbox +$50> PS5 4 11.76%
 
PS5 = Xbox With slight performance bost 7 20.59%
 
PS5 = Xbox With no performance boos 2 5.88%
 
Xbox will not have the pe... 3 8.82%
 
Still to early, wait for MS PR 13 38.24%
 
Total:34
thismeintiel said:
DonFerrari said:

Hey man, I think it is totally fair you thinking MS will do all possible to have the most powerful console. The reply was just that the way you phrased it seemed like they could be sure.

I don't think MS is really worried about having the most powerful system. They seem to be shifting towards their gaming services.  

Even if they are trying to have the most powerful console, I doubt they are interested in subsidizing it much. They didn't for the XBO or XBO X. And they sure as hell didn't for the Xbox SAD.  I think they might eat $50 or so of the cost, but I think Sony will be willing to eat $100-$150.

And considering bulk sales and that PS5 could be selling twice more than Xb4 I would say that Sony sub 150 vs MS 50 they could both be same price with PS5 being much more powerful. It is easier to eat cost and reduce cost within 24 months than to review the HW to have it more powerful =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
DonFerrari said:

Hey man, I think it is totally fair you thinking MS will do all possible to have the most powerful console. The reply was just that the way you phrased it seemed like they could be sure.

I don't think MS is really worried about having the most powerful system. They seem to be shifting towards their gaming services.  

Even if they are trying to have the most powerful console, I doubt they are interested in subsidizing it much. They didn't for the XBO or XBO X. And they sure as hell didn't for the Xbox SAD.  I think they might eat $50 or so of the cost, but I think Sony will be willing to eat $100-$150.

They are though. I just posted an interview with Phil Spencer where he confirms that he had a 2016 X1X to go head to head with the pro. They held off and released a more expensive version.

They obviously wanted the most powerful console to release only a year and a half ago. Why would that mentality from the Xbox team change now? Because of some misplaced navi rumours? Unlikely.

PS5 could indeed end up being more powerful. It isn't because Sony Co-developed Navi. This rumour needs to be put to bed.



ironmanDX said:

They are though. I just posted an interview with Phil Spencer where he confirms that he had a 2016 X1X to go head to head with the pro. They held off and released a more expensive version.

They obviously wanted the most powerful console to release only a year and a half ago. Why would that mentality from the Xbox team change now? Because of some misplaced navi rumours? Unlikely.

PS5 could indeed end up being more powerful. It isn't because Sony Co-developed Navi. This rumour needs to be put to bed.

Well, partly because the X didn't really do anything for them.  Sure, they can boast about having the most powerful machine, but its not doing them any good when they are on the same trajectory as before, selling less than half of the PS4.  The other part is cost.  MS obviously doesn't believe in subsidizing its consoles as much as Sony does, otherwise the XBO could have launched at ~$399, as well as the X.  The SAD could have been $150-$200 if they wanted.  MS isn't going to want to take massive losses on expensive HW when they are moving their business to be more focused on providing services. 

I see them aiming at $499, again, but I think the max they will subsidize is ~$50, so the system would cost them ~$550.  Sony is in a better position than they were at the launch of the PS4, so will most likely be willing to subsidize theirs more heavily.  I think they may aim for $499, too, but will be willing to take a loss of $100-$150, meaning it would cost them $600-650 to make.  Add in the fact that Sony will be able to make better deals for their chips, given they will be able to leverage the fact that they have sold ~115M PS4s by the time the PS5 releases (as well as have a proven track record, with their lowest selling home console being ~86M), and Sony could definitely end up with the more powerful machine.

Last edited by thismeintiel - on 22 April 2019

eva01beserk said:
@ permalite
I dont know what makes you say that about red gaming tech. I belive he is mostly pc. And he reviews pc components mostly.

He is mostly AMD and mostly Xbox.
I have listened to his videos before and there is obviously a confirmation bias.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

DonFerrari said:
ironmanDX said:

Yes Xbox original were stronger than PS2, as it launched several years later.

PS3 is stronger than X360 no question, show by single party titles and by late gen multiplatforms.

PS4 is stronger than X1. X1X came much later and didn't affect the landscape at all. So if you want to have math PS4 stayed stronger than X1 for much longer than X1X is stronger than PS4Pro (and that also costed a year more to launch, higher price tag and lower sales).

Agreed. Ps3 was stronger yet was outperformed most of the generation. Only near the end did 3rd parties manage to get a handle on the cell. 1st party titles were very impressive considering.

PS4 was more powerful than the X1 because of Kinect. Without a shadow of a doubt. It was actually designed to only have 4gb of ram initially... They just let Ms make a mistake and provided a solid console.

X1X wasn't intended to affect the landscape. It was intended to be the most powerful and change the perception of xbox.... It has.


The og did release later. It could have also just matched specs and price with the PS2 but didn't... Much like the X. The trend and mindset of Phil Spencer and Co is set and their pockets run deep.



Around the Network
ironmanDX said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes Xbox original were stronger than PS2, as it launched several years later.

PS3 is stronger than X360 no question, show by single party titles and by late gen multiplatforms.

PS4 is stronger than X1. X1X came much later and didn't affect the landscape at all. So if you want to have math PS4 stayed stronger than X1 for much longer than X1X is stronger than PS4Pro (and that also costed a year more to launch, higher price tag and lower sales).

Agreed. Ps3 was stronger yet was outperformed most of the generation. Only near the end did 3rd parties manage to get a handle on the cell. 1st party titles were very impressive considering.

PS4 was more powerful than the X1 because of Kinect. Without a shadow of a doubt. It was actually designed to only have 4gb of ram initially... They just let Ms make a mistake and provided a solid console.

X1X wasn't intended to affect the landscape. It was intended to be the most powerful and change the perception of xbox.... It has.


The og did release later. It could have also just matched specs and price with the PS2 but didn't... Much like the X. The trend and mindset of Phil Spencer and Co is set and their pockets run deep.

The real mistake wasn't Kinect. (Although that certainly didn't help)

It was the eSRAM. - That cache meant that the Xbox One chip was roughly the same size as the Playstation 4's chip and thus likely similar in cost to manufacture.
If Microsoft ditched that and sprinkled more CU's and had faster DRAM, things could have certainly played out differently.

Kinect was just an unnecessary add-on which added to cost, but it's not what caused the Xbox One chip to be technically inferior for the same price as Sony's efforts.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

thismeintiel said:
ironmanDX said:

They are though. I just posted an interview with Phil Spencer where he confirms that he had a 2016 X1X to go head to head with the pro. They held off and released a more expensive version.

They obviously wanted the most powerful console to release only a year and a half ago. Why would that mentality from the Xbox team change now? Because of some misplaced navi rumours? Unlikely.

PS5 could indeed end up being more powerful. It isn't because Sony Co-developed Navi. This rumour needs to be put to bed.

Well, partly because the X didn't really do anything for them.  Sure, they can boast about having the most powerful machine, but its not doing them any good when they are on the same trajectory as before, selling less than half of the PS4.  The other part is cost.  MS obviously doesn't believe in subsidizing its consoles as much as Sony does, otherwise the XBO could have launched at ~$399, as well as the X.  The SAD could have been $150-$200 if they wanted.  MS isn't going to want to take massive losses on expensive HW when they are moving their business to be more focused on providing services. 

I see them aiming at $499, again, but I think the max they will subsidize is ~$50, so the system would cost them ~$550.  Sony is in a better position than they were at the launch of the PS4, so will most likely be willing to subsidize theirs more heavily.  I think they may aim for $499, too, but will be willing to take a loss of $100-$150, meaning it would cost them $600-650 to make.  Add in the fact that Sony will be able to make better deals for their chips, given they will be able to leverage the fact that they have sold ~115M PS4s by the time the PS5 releases (as well as have a proven track record, with their lowest selling home console being ~86M), and Sony could definitely end up with the more powerful machine.

This, "Sony sold more thus can demand better deals" idea is poor. How many millions do you think they'll pay for in advance? 10 million? 12? 15? 20? No more than 20, which both companies are more than guaranteed to sell.

Prices will drop... They're not going to buy too far in advance for something they're likely to get cheaper... If it doesn't get revised within a year or two. It would be incredibly foolish.


Xbox launched at $499 because of the bundled Kinect. Though could have subsidised harder. I do think ms will have the more expensive console, so we agree here.



Pemalite said:
ironmanDX said:

Agreed. Ps3 was stronger yet was outperformed most of the generation. Only near the end did 3rd parties manage to get a handle on the cell. 1st party titles were very impressive considering.

PS4 was more powerful than the X1 because of Kinect. Without a shadow of a doubt. It was actually designed to only have 4gb of ram initially... They just let Ms make a mistake and provided a solid console.

X1X wasn't intended to affect the landscape. It was intended to be the most powerful and change the perception of xbox.... It has.


The og did release later. It could have also just matched specs and price with the PS2 but didn't... Much like the X. The trend and mindset of Phil Spencer and Co is set and their pockets run deep.

The real mistake wasn't Kinect. (Although that certainly didn't help)

It was the eSRAM. - That cache meant that the Xbox One chip was roughly the same size as the Playstation 4's chip and thus likely similar in cost to manufacture.
If Microsoft ditched that and sprinkled more CU's and had faster DRAM, things could have certainly played out differently.

Kinect was just an unnecessary add-on which added to cost, but it's not what caused the Xbox One chip to be technically inferior for the same price as Sony's efforts.

Hmm. I didn't explain myself well enough.

By saying that it was less powerful because of Kinect, I mean that the consoles design was flawed because of the direction that the X1 was aimed, casuals.

They tried to recapture that audience that had already moved on, much like they had with the Wii and tried to do enough to appease us  "hardcore" gamers too. It didn't work.

Had they decided to focus on the core gaming audience, who knows what they could have done. They decided to shoot themselves in the foot just before the race instead. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.



ironmanDX said:
thismeintiel said:

Well, partly because the X didn't really do anything for them.  Sure, they can boast about having the most powerful machine, but its not doing them any good when they are on the same trajectory as before, selling less than half of the PS4.  The other part is cost.  MS obviously doesn't believe in subsidizing its consoles as much as Sony does, otherwise the XBO could have launched at ~$399, as well as the X.  The SAD could have been $150-$200 if they wanted.  MS isn't going to want to take massive losses on expensive HW when they are moving their business to be more focused on providing services. 

I see them aiming at $499, again, but I think the max they will subsidize is ~$50, so the system would cost them ~$550.  Sony is in a better position than they were at the launch of the PS4, so will most likely be willing to subsidize theirs more heavily.  I think they may aim for $499, too, but will be willing to take a loss of $100-$150, meaning it would cost them $600-650 to make.  Add in the fact that Sony will be able to make better deals for their chips, given they will be able to leverage the fact that they have sold ~115M PS4s by the time the PS5 releases (as well as have a proven track record, with their lowest selling home console being ~86M), and Sony could definitely end up with the more powerful machine.

This, "Sony sold more thus can demand better deals" idea is poor. How many millions do you think they'll pay for in advance? 10 million? 12? 15? 20? No more than 20, which both companies are more than guaranteed to sell.

Prices will drop... They're not going to buy too far in advance for something they're likely to get cheaper... If it doesn't get revised within a year or two. It would be incredibly foolish.


Xbox launched at $499 because of the bundled Kinect. Though could have subsidised harder. I do think ms will have the more expensive console, so we agree here.

It's not poor, it's how bargaining works.  If AMD is convinced by Sony that they have an incredible chance to sell at least 85M units, which is the lowest they have ever sold, they will give them better prices upfront.  They will still make their money even at a lower profit margin AND have the added PR of being what powers the #1 console of that gen.  And, yes, as prices fall, Sony will be able to continue to make deals for cheaper prices.  They aren't fixed. Of course, we also don't know how much involvement Sony actually had in Navi's development.  If Sony shouldered some of the cost of its development, they would most likely use that as reasoning for cheaper prices, too.

MS doesn't have the same advantage, cause only Lord knows how much they will sell.  Could be around what XBO sells or it could be much less.  They are still going to want to make their money from those chips, so will sell them with a higher profit margin.  If the XB2 is a success, then MS can make better deals with AMD.

Yes, the Kinect helped add to the price of the XBO, but MS still chose not to subsidize it when they dropped the camera, instead matching the PS4's price, even though it was noticeably less powerful.  Only after months of being outsold by the PS4 did they start having random firesales, dropping the price to ~$349 every so often.  Of course, by that time, they were probably already at break even with a $349 price.



thismeintiel said:
ironmanDX said:

This, "Sony sold more thus can demand better deals" idea is poor. How many millions do you think they'll pay for in advance? 10 million? 12? 15? 20? No more than 20, which both companies are more than guaranteed to sell.

Prices will drop... They're not going to buy too far in advance for something they're likely to get cheaper... If it doesn't get revised within a year or two. It would be incredibly foolish.


Xbox launched at $499 because of the bundled Kinect. Though could have subsidised harder. I do think ms will have the more expensive console, so we agree here.

It's not poor, it's how bargaining works.  If AMD is convinced by Sony that they have an incredible chance to sell at least 85M units, which is the lowest they have ever sold, they will give them better prices upfront.  They will still make their money even at a lower profit margin AND have the added PR of being what powers the #1 console of that gen.  And, yes, as prices fall, Sony will be able to continue to make deals for cheaper prices.  They aren't fixed. Of course, we also don't know how much involvement Sony actually had in Navi's development.  If Sony shouldered some of the cost of its development, they would most likely use that as reasoning for cheaper prices, too.

MS doesn't have the same advantage, cause only Lord knows how much they will sell.  Could be around what XBO sells or it could be much less.  They are still going to want to make their money from those chips, so will sell them with a higher profit margin.  If the XB2 is a success, then MS can make better deals with AMD.

Yes, the Kinect helped add to the price of the XBO, but MS still chose not to subsidize it when they dropped the camera, instead matching the PS4's price, even though it was noticeably less powerful.  Only after months of being outsold by the PS4 did they start having random firesales, dropping the price to ~$349 every so often.  Of course, by that time, they were probably already at break even with a $349 price.

They'll both sell out of the initial launch devices though. It makes absolutely no sense for Sony to pay for or enter a deal for 85 plus million chipsets that will be phased out. Even if they are guaranteed to sell them all. Talk about how bargaining works all you like, it would be a foolish bargain.


It also makes no sense for amd to back one horse over the other, even if PS5 is more likely to sell a higher volume than neXtbox. They're in the business to make money. Again, it would be foolish. No one has a crystal ball here. To be clear though, I do believe that the PS5 will sell more it's just not written in stone. No one expected the 360 to be as successful as it was. Nor the Wii.... The Switch... The og PlayStation... Anything can happen.